The New York Times: The Imperial Theater, where the rapturous musical “Natasha, Pierre and the Great Comet of 1812” blazed opened on Monday night, has never looked more imperial — or felt more intimate. Who would have guessed that Dave Malloy’s gorgeous pop opera, adapted from a slice of Tolstoy’s “War and Peace,” would land on Broadway with all its signal virtues intact, and in some ways heightened?
10 comments:
This show looks fantastic. Not just because of the cast and the show itself, because of how amazing and inventive the design of the show is. This is one of the most unique scenic designs I've seen on Broadway--the designer Mimi Lien has put the audience in the center of the show--by putting many of them on tables in the center of the stage. Of course, this has been done before, but it is still a bold choice, and for a show like this I would imagine it really makes the difference and adds to the show's energy and interest. Besides that, the set dressing looks absolutely beautiful and creative. This combined with the very well reviewed cast, and the show as a whole makes me incredibly interested in seeing what this show has to offer--despite the fact that it is commercial theatre, it still seems like one of the most creative works of the last several years.
It’s exciting that this show, like Hamilton, is adapting a plot that most people wouldn’t consider and making it really entertaining. I’ve have been reading a lot of articles this semester about areas where theatre needs to improve and I think that this show checks a lot of those boxes: Broadway debut, female director, some casting diversity, plus a strong (messy) connection to regional theatre. Hopefully, Great Comet’s success will inspire more new and diverse productions.
While this critic acknowledges that the book is a little dense, he doesn’t seem bothered by it. I also read a review of this production in the Washington Post and, if I’m remembering correctly, that critic thought the dense story detracted from the overall production (though it was still a glowing review). I think of critics as having a higher tolerance for dense shows than the average audience member, so I do wonder if that will affect ticket sales or audience demographics.
I’m so glad this production received such a glowing review. This is the kind of work I want to see succeed on Broadway. Interesting, different, lush, challenging work. A Broadway full of meaningful, beautiful work will create an audience that expects and understands (demands!) more beautiful and meaningful work. I have cautious hopes that this will continue to encourage a kind of Renaissance in Broadway material and support the relationship between innovative off-Broadway companies and Broadway producers. I know there has between negative dealings and controversy between Ars Nova and the Broadway producers, but perhaps that can be a learning experience/signal to producers to appropriately honor the originating home of the works they produce.
It’s been a long time since I’ve wanted to see a Broadway musical so badly (Hamilton, as much as I enjoy it, is off the list just because it seems so impossible to get in the door.)
I find it interesting that the headline of this review has the title of another show in it, purely from the perspective of review writing. However, one could argue it is a good thing when the name of the show being mentioned is “Hamilton”. I feel like I keep hearing more and more about “Great Comet”, however all I know about the show content is that it is based on “War and Peace” and has a great score. I keep hearing about the legal argument with Ars Nova and the different companies that it has moved around to. I think this is a cool comment on how word of mouth works in theatre. So often, theatres and shows get caught up in marketing campaigns, and forget that word of mouth can go a long way. I think it is because I am young that I haven’t had that much experience of going out of my way to go see a show because someone told me about it, but I can say that the most effective reviews have been from other people.
If you had told me ten years ago that the most listened-to musicals in my musical library right now were going to be based on War and Peace and the other based on dead presidents and treasury deals, I would not believe you. What I think is so astounding about Great Comet though, this the storytelling. Yes, "it's a complicated Russian novel / everyone's got nine different names" but you don't even notice it after a while. You adapt quickly to the world and are literally thrust into it (as the characters dance around you). When I saw this show in Cambridge, I couldn't stop grinning. It was like life was unfolding around me, and I was both a spectator and a part of it all. Which, in my opinion, is the best kind of feeling you can bestow upon an audience member. What I think makes Hamilton and Great Comet so special is that it takes this story that wouldn't otherwise be told in this format and revolutionizes it. Literally, anything can be a musical, if you tell the story the right way. And boy, does Comet tell that story well.
I love that they kept the audience mixed in with the cast when they moved Great Comet to Broadway. I got to see the show when it was at the American Repertory theater and I doubt the show would have been as good or memorable if the audience had been seated in a traditional way. The show would still be interesting but it would feel less natural and, in my opinion, make less sense. With the seating done the way it is it feels like you are a part of their world as you watch the show and the descriptive narration feels like it belongs, almost as if the characters are recounting what happened to a friend that wasn’t there at the time. If all the seating was traditional proscenium seating all of that dialogue would have felt out of place or like the show was trying way too hard to break the fourth wall. Beyond that much of the nuance of the interplay between the characters would be lost. Since when the audience is right next to them the actors can make subtler choices with things like body language without having to over play things in order for them to be seen far away in the audience the way they would normally have to.
It is good to hear that despite all the difficult press surrounding this show's move to Broadway, the show opened successfully. It sounds as though - credits aside for the moment - all the aspects of the show that made it so great in its initial incarnation were present in the Broadway spectacle. I was rather floored to hear that the venue sat a thousand. All the design areas should be commended for preserving the intimacy of the original space.
It does, however, sound as though the plot - as one might expect - is a bit dense, and difficult to follow. Having read the whole book (yes, the *whole* thing), I am unsurprised, though slightly disappointed. I was hoping that with visuals the plot might untangle itself slightly, and that with intentions perhaps more perceptible through stage direction one could finally keep up with Tolstoy's monster. But, alas. It sounds as though this is a great success otherwise, and I hope it runs for a long while, or at least until I can see it.
A couple of years ago I saw the company preform a couple songs. I thought the opening number was great. The rest was eh. I think it had to do with the fact that it ws being performed out of context and in a huge field. The shows is meant to be intimate. Having read the reviews and hearing word of mouth I definitely need to see this. I do wonder how they are doing in the transition from small off broadway in a tent to a broadway theater. I know they have people sitting in the audience and the staging breaks the fourth wall a lot. But how well here they doing this? During thanksgiving or winter break I hopefully will get to see the show!
I see a lot of plays which are conceived for a proscenium space that still lose much of their magic because of that large looming fourth wall. It’s a tricky balance to keep the audience invested in a show in a proscenium theatre and one which many companies never fully reach. It is all the more impressive then that the company of Natasha, Pierre and the great comet of 1812, a show conceived as an immersive piece, convinced the author so thoroughly that they had nailed the proscenium production as well. It certainly seems like if I get the chance I should go to see the show, even if I don’t like it at least it’s helping to break Broadway out of its mold just a little bit. Something that is sorely needed if you ask me. I hope the cast continues to have a great run and keeps putting up innovative theatre.
It's nice to read an article about a smash hit on Broadway that isn't Hamilton. Though I don't believe I will ever get tired of the show, it'll be nice change of scenery on the blog.
Natasha Pierre and the Comet of 1812 is a really exciting idea, and I'm even more excited to see it come December.
I've read and heard so much about the small-black box style musical turned proscenium style Broadway sensation. Transferring to a broadway theater from a black box, especially such a large space like the Imperial, must be a daunting task. Im happy to hear it made its highly dramatized move successfully.
More than an accomplishment by the director I think that a show that transferred that smoothly from space to space, though brought to life by the director, speaks so highly to the writing of the show. In simple terms, it is really really hard to make a fantastic piece of writing bad.
I also look forward to seeing all of the technical elements. Because the space is now so immersive but vast at the same time I'm excited to see how the design team dealt with the tiny details but also made it work for a huge space. The photos look rich and powerful, not to mention expensive. I look forward to the article discussing budgets on this show.
More importantly, I'm looking forward to Tony season, I hope this show holds a few.
Post a Comment